When it come to abortion we are in dire need of clarity, and clarity can only be achieved via definition. William F. Buckley once said something along this order:
There's only one reason to for abortion - you don't believe its murder and there's only one reason to be against abortion - you believe it is murder.
Let's start defining all of this by reviewing the account of Sir Thomas More, who refused to accept the divorce
and re-marriage of Henry VIII as legal on religious grounds. During the trial Richard Rich,
having sworn under oath to tell the truth, lied about Sir Thomas, a lie
which condemned him. Although the outcome was predetermined this lie
justified the death sentence.
Sir Thomas More commented, "In good faith, Rich, I am sorrier for your
perjury than my peril". As Rich was walking away from the witness
stand, Sir Thomas says, "I have one question to ask the witness. That's a
chain of office you are wearing. May I see it? The red dragon. What's
this?" Cromwell replies, "Sir Richard is appointed Attorney-General for
Wales". More says, "For Wales? Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing
to give his soul for the whole world . . . But for Wales!"
Nancy Pelosi was asked if a fetus isn't a human being then what is it? If a fetus is a human being then defeating abortion is a moral imperative. If these people are so afraid of standing on such strong moral foundation then what do they believe in - other than getting re-elected by pandering to the lowest moral common denominator? The left, and many alleged conservatives, are willing to bend on infanticide because they believe they can't get elected otherwise.
But accepting infanticide for a seat in Congress?
Dennis J. Kucinich, a far left former Mayor of Cleveland and Member of the House of Representatives was an anti-abortion Catholic all of his life. At least until he decided he wanted to be the Democrat nominee to run for President of the United States. Then he had an epiphany that abortion wasn't so bad after all.
But accepting infanticide to be President of the United States?
He sold his integrity and didn't even get to run, and that decision will paint him forever for who and what he really is. And today we have radical Pope Leo, who like Pope Francis, dislikes the traditional Catholic Church, and so set out to fundamentally transform that institution. In fact, according to LifeSiteNews:
Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia said Pope Francis deliberately sought to ‘recreate’ the Pontifical Academy for Life and the John Paul II Institute in order to move Catholic theology beyond what he described as a ‘moralistic’ framework based on natural law.
Yes, we wouldn’t want Catholic or Christian theology to be based on morality, would we! And certainly not on natural law! In point of fact the main stream "Christian" churches are fundamentally twisting themselves into shapes no apostle would recognize; bending like pretzels to please a secularized society, most of whom rarely attend.
Abortion cannot intelligently, morally or ideologically be defined as anything but the murder of the innocent unborn. As for these "religious" leaders who've sworn oaths at their ordination to uphold Christian doctrine and scripture; they've sold their integrity and honor in order to be politically correct. Perhaps they should remember that someone is watching? Truthfully, based on their action, I have serious misgiving about whether or not they really believe there's a God.
